Urban Dead Wiki Board
May 18, 2024, 05:27:53 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Looking to move this to a different server - without annoying ads.
 
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Considerations on the whole combat revive thing.

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Considerations on the whole combat revive thing.  (Read 215 times)
Koukol
Guest
« on: February 10, 2008, 05:14:50 pm »

Given the ambiguous role of syringes, and how people react to their uses, I imagine a lot of suggestions have been made about them, about brain rots, about revives, etc. I'm not too good at wiki navigation, though, so I'm not sure whether my suggestion is as new as it seems, or if there are 107654 versions of it on archive pages I didn't find.

So let's ask here.

It seems that combat revive is BAD. It is frowned upon. It is considered either irresponsible (bringing PKers back to life is dangerous), annoying (and bringing back to life an unwilling zombie player is dangerous), and unfair (if we define a kill as "turning a survivor into a zombie or a zombie as a survivor", it's a 10ap instant kill weapon thing (+10 search), as opposed to the 40ap or so bite kill). Yet, it's a fundamental tool, the only one that allows zombie-to-human migrations.

So far, the only way to reduce the "weapon" usage of syringes, is to offer the brain rot protection to the zombies who want to stay zombies. It had the drawback to force these zombies to stay zombies forever and ever, and this drawback has been corrected a bit with the necrotech-network-revive thingy (zombies who really don't want to be revived but who really really want to be revived must deliberately seek and enter a lit NT building and wait). Ok. This is the situation.

I'd suggest something additional (that would either slightly negate the point of brain rot or the point of NT-network-revives, but work as a better revive system) : the ability to accept revives or not. That is : "The syringe yadda molecular work yadda veins, struggling with urgh yadda zombie thing. Does it succeed? [Yes.] [Unfortunately not.]", click.

Its advantages would be :

1) To not make of the syringe an über-weapon. If you click "no", it acts as a headshot at worst. It doesn't kill you instantly (in the turn-zombie-into-human sense), like a 100-hp zombie superbite would kill a survivor.

2) To ensure the revived human is willing and happy, preventing absurd "waah i wanna be a zombie" PK and suicide reactions.

3) To relieve the survivor from the combat-revive responsability (no more "uh, sorry, i thought reviving you would have been a good thing, like, hm, as if you were a human killed by a zombie and revived, i didn't intend to grief, my bad"). No more need to check profiles for out-of-atmosphere "I WANT TO PLAY A WHILE AS A ZOMBIE PLZ DO NOT REVIVE" descriptions.

4) To allow players to willingly play an unwilling zombie, without having to play out of character if revived (suicides) and without having to play out of character if wanting to be revived (lit nt buildings search if brainrot).

Now, people might ask why zombie would be able to choose to be killed (in the change-nature sense) or not, while humans do get killed (in the change-nature sense) each time their HP reaches 0. This question implies that syringes are a valid weapon. And that the vulnerability to nature change should be the same for zombies and humans. I think it shouldn't. Humans should fear of being killed and turned into a zombies. Zombies should fear nothing, except losing some AP by falling down and having to get up. In particular, forced revives shouldn't be a threat. It should be a hope. I have five characters in Malton, all of them play accordingly to their nature (careful survivors or ferocious zombies, depending on their state), but I have an absurd difficulty to keep my zombies zombified. People complain about the lack of zombies. People complain about combat revives. I think neither brain rot nor out of atmosphere behaviours should be a requisite, to be able to play a zombie "for a while". I think the consensus on combat revives tis solid enough to try to neutralize them.

People have probably already suggested it. What were the arguments against it ? Shall I try to get this in the wiki ? Would it be spammed/flamed to death ? Or would anyone of you take this suggestion and wikify it himself (as I don't care who posts it, and and not to eager to get into proper wiki pages edition and stuff) ?
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Samael Darkfire
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2012, 07:07:53 am »

Quote
I'd suggest something additional (that would either slightly negate the point of brain rot or the point of NT-network-revives, but work as a better revive system) : the ability to accept revives or not. That is : "The syringe yadda molecular work yadda veins, struggling with urgh yadda zombie thing. Does it succeed? [Yes.] [Unfortunately not.]", click.
Dude! You do realize if Kevan does that, then Survivors are going to demand the ability to accept getting up as a zombie or not after death. It'd completely ruin the game.
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy